Islam and Christian conquests

For the last couple of years, since the rise of ISIS, the social media have been filled with accusations about how Islam has always been violent, and has killed incredible numbers of people and caused mass migrations, etc. The main argument has been that Islam has only been quiescent, and that any apparent peaceful interlude is just that, an interlude. We in the West, of course, are completely innocent and have never engaged in any such behavior as Christians. The problem is that there is absolutely no historical veracity to such statements.

Note, there is truth in saying that Islam was engaged in conquest for several centuries. The lack of truth is in trying to claim that Christians were not involved in any parallel set of happenings, which mark our history in close to the same way in which the Muslim conquests mark their history. That claim is only possible if you posit a definition of Christianity that is distinctly American but also distinctly false and inaccurate. The definition of Christianity that is posited is a distinctly pietistic American definition, but it is also a particularly disingenuous one. The definition is disingenuous because it counters any example that one could give about Christian misbehavior simply by saying that they were not “true” Christians, or did not “truly” understand the Gospel. This is convenient because even if something is the main belief of a Christian people and doctrinally supported by the particular Christian group, one can always dismiss the example by saying that if they were “true” Christians, then they would have never done or believed that. A secondary approach is simply to point out that that group was not part of your group, and to then claim that the entire group was mistaken, even if it were the dominant denomination of entire countries.

This is disingenuous because the same thing is not allowed when we speak of Islam. From before President Bush through President Obama, Islam is spoken of as though it were a massive seething pool of darkness just waiting for any opportunity to break loose. All Muslims are either just waiting to attack us, or are faux Muslim in that they do not realize that their own religion demands that “they” conquer us. Much of the opposition to the Iran deal has as much to do with the fact that it is a Muslim country as anything else. In passing, we do a parallel hit on President Putin of Russia, as though he is just waiting to attack and destroy us. It is a wonder to me that this does not make some of my fellow Orthodox distinctly uncomfortable since the largest Orthodox patriarchate in the world is Moscow. But, maybe it does, as just yesterday I saw a couple of hit pieces on both His Beatitude Patriarch Kirill of Russia and His All Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. Frankly, I think I am beginning to detect a pattern. If the leader is not American, then, even if we give him verbal loyalty, we stand ready to doubt him.

But what did the Christians do in their own right? Well, frankly, the Spanish and Portuguese most certainly learned from their Islamic conquest and then the Reconquista. In the same year that the last Islamic city was taken, Cristofero Colombo (Christopher Columbus) was commissioned by His Most Catholic Majesties, Ferdinand and Isabella, to search for new worlds (“to go where no man has gone before” – my geekiness comes out). He opens the door to the New World. Within a few years, Montezuma Xocoyotzin dies, and the Aztec empire begins to fall. Its final fall is due to Spanish troops allied with the Tlaxcalans. The conquest of South America also proceeded with South America finally being split between the Spanish and the Portuguese under a negotiated settlement approved through a Papal bull. Note that part of the agreement was the expansion of the Catholic faith through the agency of the Majesties of Spain and Portugal to the natives, that they might know the light of Christ. And so, the conquest proceeded with a Christian blessing.

Not to be outdone, the British began their expansion as well. Eventually, their empire covered more land than any previous empire on Earth. It was well said at one point that the sun never sets on the British Empire. But, their expansion, also, claimed eventually to be bringing the light of civilization and Christianity to the natives. While it is true that the early East India Company actually tried to keep missionaries out that effort failed. Eventually many missionaries went out to “darkest Africa” and to India with a dedicated will to bring Christ to the nations. However, if you also read the actual histories of many of those missionaries and missions, you will find that they quickly allied themselves with the British civil power, receiving special privileges but at the same time confirming the right of the British to the conquest and governance of those lands. The broad military repression of India and many parts of Africa is replete with stories of mistreatment, torture, unjust jailing, and conquest. Yet few Christian missionary voices, or home front voices, spoke out against this behavior. Many supported it as necessary.

America has its own history that is equally dark and Christian. While many of the Puritans and the people of Rhode Island and Pennsylvania and Jamestown ought to be commended for, at first, reaching peaceful treaties with Native Americans, that phase did not last long. The doctrine of Manifest Destiny takes over quickly. Calvinist predestination is applied to expansionist politics, and it becomes clear that God intended the American nation to expand from sea to shining sea. Rather quickly, just like with the Spanish and Portuguese, utilitarian genocide begins. The Cherokee are forced out. In 1830, the Indian Removal Act was approved, and legally supported mass transport begins by the late 1830’s (Nvna Daula Tsvyi), the Trail of Tears. In the 1850’s, a book was published that was very influential in the South, “Slavery: Ordained of God” was published by the Rev. Fred A. Ross, D.D., a Presbyterian minister and member of the national assembly. As one may guess, it argues that God intended for Christians to hold slaves and to oversee non-white people (to include Native Americans, Chinese, etc.) as part of their duty to God and their responsibility to civilize and evangelize lesser people. He argues that white people are to be fathers to the other races, raising them as children who need oversight.

Massive utilitarian genocide is found in the conquest of North and South America, as well as parts of Australasia. Note that utilitarian genocide need not always involve the direct killing of people. Rather, policies such as forcible relocation, civil hindrances (lack of right to vote), social impediments (i.e inability to get a job, etc.) all contribute to an utilitarian genocide. In the case of the Spanish, the British, the Portuguese, the Americans, etc., all these are the exact same policies as were used by Islam during its period of greatest conquest. And, just like Islam is not one religion, but actually several groups (Sunni, Shiite, Sufi, etc.), so is Christianity several groups. And, just like the Arabic conquest, so did various forms of Christianity openly support the colonization of much of the world, linking the preaching of Christ to the advance of the empires.

Various groups within Islam are now resurgent. They are wanting to take control. However, within my lifetime, Great Britain still had multiple colonies in Africa. Within my mother’s lifetime, Great Britain and France directly controlled much of the Middle East and ran it as protectorates, from which they sucked massive profits. It was only after I was in college that various of the Arab countries were finally able to wrest control of their oil away from foreign companies that had grabbed control during the “protectorates.” We rail at the Arabs countries, and yet during my lifetime, those same countries were still regaining the right to self-determination from foreign colonization. There just may be a reason why we are disliked!

We are rightfully upset at the immoral behavior of ISIS, the Taliban, and Al Qaida. What they have done is horrific. But, we do not bolster our case by making ourselves look to be total innocents, when we were doing some of the same things as recently as the 20th century. We do not bolster our case when we ignore the conquest and destruction of people that we brought during the period of western colonization while claiming that we were bringing civilization and the light of Christ to the nations. We do not bolster our case by trying to redefine the meaning of Christian in such a way that no one who does something with which we disagree is truly a Christian. Worse, by engaging in that type of judgment, we end up in the same place as those of whom Jesus declared that they were sons of those who killed the prophets.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’ Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.”

By refusing to see our history and distancing ourselves from our Christian ancestors, and by claiming that they were not truly Christian, we commit the identical error that the scribes and Pharisees committed. Lord, have mercy.